CURRENT EVENTS July 14 - July 21

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 428
  • Views: 8K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
Obvious question... why would Joe take a sleep medicine before a debate?

Hunter Biden says dad Joe was on Ambien during disastrous 2024 debate with Trump

Former first son Hunter Biden claimed in a new interview Monday that his father’s disastrous performance in last year’s debate with Donald Trump was due in part to the 46th president taking Ambien — which there is no record of him being prescribed.

“I know exactly what happened in that debate,” Hunter, 55, told YouTube personality Andrew Callaghan in an interview released on the anniversary of Biden prematurely ending his re-election bid.

nypost.com

Hunter Biden says dad Joe was on Ambien during disastrous 2024 debate with Trump

Hunter ripped into portrayals of his father’s decline as a conspiracy theory, and insisted that the 46th president simply “got old before our eyes.”
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...
I think he is confusing his dad with Mayor Quimby …

IMG_8029.jpeg

IMG_8030.gif
 
Ramrouser said:
A bit silly but he’s right. Commanders is an XFL name.
Click to expand...
So I'm sort of mixed on this topic based on what I've read, I'm not sure why Cleveland changed their name.

BUT, from what I've read the term "Redskins" to a native American equivalent to calling a black person the N word.

For that reason I believe it should have been changed.
 
I have no idea why Zen keeps posting things about Biden. I and I suspect 95%+ of the Democrats on this board would gladly disavow the past president, who has no present power whatsoever, if Zen and his ilk would denounce the current president, who has more power than any executive in the history of our republic.

Why would Hunter, who has never served in an elected office, ever be relevant to the discussions we have here in the age of Trump?
 
Last edited:
StrangePackage said:
Than get rid of military bases named for traitors?

That's your big objection?
Click to expand...
And statutes removed or defaced of Columbus, and Teddy Roosevelt, Maj Gen Philip Schuyler (Albany NY), conquistador Juan de Onate, Mayor Frank Rizzo, abolitionist Matthias Baldwin, Ponce de Leon, Pioneer statues in Oregon, John Sutter and George Washington.
 
Ramrouser said:
And statutes removed or defaced of Columbus, and Teddy Roosevelt, Maj Gen Philip Schuyler (Albany NY), conquistador Juan de Onate, Mayor Frank Rizzo, abolitionist Matthias Baldwin, Ponce de Leon, Pioneer statues in Oregon, John Sutter and George Washington.
Click to expand...
I'd be fascinated to see the link your list comes from. Just absolutely fascinated.

Which of those were removed or defaced by the Biden administration?
 
UNCatTech said:
BUT, from what I've read the term "Redskins" to a native American equivalent to calling a black person the N word.

For that reason I believe it should have been changed.
Click to expand...
No, that's what liberal, educated whites think of the term. No one else. It was a term used by the native Americans themselves to describe themselves (contrast to Indians and indigenous peoples). 70% to 90% of native Americans support the mascot and the family of the individual whose face is the model for the logo supports the logo. This is pure wokeness.

Not a hill to die on though.
 
Ramrouser said:
And statutes removed or defaced of Columbus, and Teddy Roosevelt, Maj Gen Philip Schuyler (Albany NY), conquistador Juan de Onate, Mayor Frank Rizzo, abolitionist Matthias Baldwin, Ponce de Leon, Pioneer statues in Oregon, John Sutter and George Washington.
Click to expand...
Because it would amuse me, without utilizing a search engine, tell me in which cities were the removed statues of Juan de Onate, Frank Rizzo, and Matthias Baldwin originally located?
 


The judge can’t really make the defendant say anything other than acknowledging he understands the charges and terms of his plea.
 
Ramrouser said:
No, that's what liberal, educated whites think of the term. No one else. It was a term used by the native Americans themselves to describe themselves (contrast to Indians and indigenous peoples). 70% to 90% of native Americans support the mascot and the family of the individual whose face is the model for the logo supports the logo. This is pure wokeness.

Not a hill to die on though.
Click to expand...
My in laws, who are Native American , would tell you to kiss their ass. Are you stupid enough to think they had any input into what they were called in English? What a maroon.
 
Ramrouser said:
No, that's what liberal, educated whites think of the term. No one else. It was a term used by the native Americans themselves to describe themselves (contrast to Indians and indigenous peoples). 70% to 90% of native Americans support the mascot and the family of the individual whose face is the model for the logo supports the logo. This is pure wokeness.

Not a hill to die on though.
Click to expand...
This is really fascinating to me because I've got a lot of friends who are enrolled members of a federally recognized Indian tribe here in NC and to say they don't share your view would be putting it as mildly as I possibly could.

I know it's purely anecdote, but do you have some links for your statistics?
 
Last edited:
Ramrouser said:
No, that's what liberal, educated whites think of the term. No one else. It was a term used by the native Americans themselves to describe themselves (contrast to Indians and indigenous peoples). 70% to 90% of native Americans support the mascot and the family of the individual whose face is the model for the logo supports the logo. This is pure wokeness.

Not a hill to die on though.
Click to expand...
That's a lot of bullshit. While the specific words might be more or less problematic, the big problem is that it objectifies people. Devils, Bulls, Tigers, Lions . . . Indians.

By contrast, there are no teams nicknamed "whiteys" or anything of the sort (save possibly Celtics, whose origins I don't know). The names that apply to people are named after professions or roles, so to speak (e.g. Pirates, Deacons, Cavaliers) or have geographic relevance (as we all well know). But teams weren't named Indians or Redskins because they were local markers. They were named Indians because Indians sounded tough and scary. The whole idea is racist.

I don't know why the Seminole tribe has embraced its use. I'm sure they have good reasons. I don't know them, not really. But for the most part, native Americans do not like being sports mascots -- just like other Americans (hence the lack of "redneck" teams).

Redskins in particular would be like having a team named the slants with an Asian mascot.
 
superrific said:
That's a lot of bullshit. While the specific words might be more or less problematic, the big problem is that it objectifies people. Devils, Bulls, Tigers, Lions . . . Indians.

By contrast, there are no teams nicknamed "whiteys" or anything of the sort (save possibly Celtics, whose origins I don't know). The names that apply to people are named after professions or roles, so to speak (e.g. Pirates, Deacons, Cavaliers) or have geographic relevance (as we all well know). But teams weren't named Indians or Redskins because they were local markers. They were named Indians because Indians sounded tough and scary. The whole idea is racist.

I don't know why the Seminole tribe has embraced its use. I'm sure they have good reasons. I don't know them, not really. But for the most part, native Americans do not like being sports mascots -- just like other Americans (hence the lack of "redneck" teams).

Redskins in particular would be like having a team named the slants with an Asian mascot.
Click to expand...
Correct. 0% chance Ramrouser knows a single native American. It is definitely true that most members of some tribes prefer "Indian" to "native American." The Seminoles, for example, prefer to be called Indians. But the percentage of native Americans who are ok with the term "Redskin" is far below 5%, no matter the tribe.
 
Ramrouser said:
No, that's what liberal, educated whites think of the term. No one else. It was a term used by the native Americans themselves to describe themselves (contrast to Indians and indigenous peoples). 70% to 90% of native Americans support the mascot and the family of the individual whose face is the model for the logo supports the logo. This is pure wokeness.

Not a hill to die on though.
Click to expand...
True, not a hill to die on.

The story I read regarding specifically the Washington franchise, was written by a native American. Because, up to that point, I thought it was ridiculous.

In my opinion, you choose powerful mascots...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top